Bible Question: What was the First Sin?

quote:

---

phil

​

This is a bit of a stretch, but I'm guessing that the actual answer is going to be. . . .
Eve was formed after God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Also, God said nothing of touching the apple (only eating it).

​

When Eve was talking to the serpent, she said, "We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.'"

​

One could interpret this as "giving false testimony," which IS a sin (although it's not necessarily against "a neighbor").

​

Chances are I'm wrong again, but it was worth a shot.

---

This is not correct. The first sin could only occur after the law was tended at Sinai. Note that Jacob married two sisters - forbidden in the OT laws - but this was not a sin as that law was not yet mandated, untill 400 years later via Moses.The issue of adam and eve become doubly wrong: it was not addressed to humanity, nor was it given upon this physical, earthly realm: the texts clearly states that adam and eve were in a different realm, from which they were cast down upon the earth from a paradisical garden - and re-entry was barred by spiritual beings rotating firey swords every which way.The first law is that of 'GO FORTH AND MULIPLY' [genesis] - because it is formalised in the OT. The Israelites were forgiven the sin of worshipping a golden calf in the desert, even after witnessing all the miracles in Egypt: this is because Moses had yet not descended from the mount and the law was not made manifest as yet. They commited no sin - whch is a biblical term for a crime. Cain too was forgiven the crime of murder - which carries Capital punishment - for the same reason.I believe the first sin was the violation of the sabbath, which law was given, and violated in the desert. We learn from this that mandated laws have to be enshrined via the registered written word - that's how the judiciary system operates: inferences or oral communications are insufficient, and not recallable by follow-up generations.

quote:

---

shilo
Somthing to think about reguarding the first sin question.
Actually, God spoke only to Adam reguarding the prohibition (2:15-17)not to Eve the info Eve got was from Adam - so maybe Adam did not relay the message correctly. Maybe thats why the Serpent went to her first with his question. Just a thought.

---

This is correct. The text shows that eve was not yet seperated from adam when this command was made - adam is the only human addressed. In turn, adam exaggerated the command to eve, telling her not to 'touch' the fruit, as opposed not to 'eat'; this exaggeration, though done with the best of intentions by adam to protect eve, became the stumbling block: the serpent (which represents the negative 'testing' force)- pounced on this weak link.In effect, no one in the adam-eve-serpent episode commited a sin - and what are percieved as punishments hide a blessing in disguise!

quote:

---

dameeva
It amazes me how the bible is still taken so literally. Seen any talking serpents lately? I don't dismiss the bible as an authority on life but the interpretations are bordering on ridiculous.

---

This is a commonplace, pervasive mindset today. The OT understandings by the world at large is the result of much misrep and mis-info, because it was transmitted via christianity and islam - who never followed or understood the OT (Israel was in a state of hibernation the last 2000 years). The two great religions which made the OT known to the world - also included some wrong notions, such as a disney-like rendition of its narratives: how many realise that Isaac, who was offered as a sacrifice by his father Abraham, was '37 years' old - and not an 8 year old child? This gives the story a totally different understanding.In actual terms, the OT is a most exacting document, and requires to be taken literally, notwithstanding there are sections of expressionism, but which are clearly identified as such when the text is better examined. The dates and time factors are mathematcally vindicated in its literal sense: if the 10 commandments are texted as given on a saturday, which is the case, then it will mathematically (literally) align with the entire 3000 year diarised calendar and all other numerical dates such as dob and dod's of any figure listed in this document. The latter is an unfathomable feat, considering the OT is akin to a telephone directory with 100s of 1000s of numbers strewn across its verses and passages.The issue is that most people do not apply a literal reading of the OT's exacting texts, aligning it with myth. Genesis is a scientific document, which introduced evolution - it differs from Darwin only in the aspect of cross-specie, and instead posits 'within-specie' grads, pursuent to the 'seed', which scientifically accounts for 99.9% of all repro and dna transmissions.

quote:

---

icant
God said:"thou shalt not eat of it:"

​

This man chose to disobey God.

​

Are you saying that is not sin?

​

If so I would like your definition of sin.

---

Sin applies to the violation of 613 commandments in the OT. The command to Adam is not included here, because it was made to adam in a non-physical realm as per the texts. It is not a command unto humanity.

quote:

---

dameeva
What kind of creator would set his\her creations up to commit sins? The perception of the meaning of sin is so outdated. The perception of the biblical god is also outdated, and patriachal.
I read these texts as completely spiritual (inner growth). The story of Adam and Eve eating from the tree of knowledge simply signifies the beginning of life as we know it through choice. The serpent, the devil and whoever else was involved simply represent inner thoughts and beliefs. It was never about wrong-doing.

---

One cannot perform any good without being also subjected to temptation. The adam story represents every human being tempted to sin (commit a crime) at every turn of his existence. The serpent represents the negative force - there is no devil.

quote:

---

dameeve
Do you mean the story of Adam, Eve, god and the serpent is a myth?
Also, do you mean the devil wasn't in this part of the story or there is or was no devil, period?
Looking at the story from the perception that Adam (masculine force) was tempted to commit a sin by Eve (feminine force) who was tempted by the serpent (negative force), and that it was all created by a loving god (positive force),it just does not make any sense whatsoever. There was never a 'sin' committed.
There are far more logical explanations that don't need rocket science to understand the guidance the bible offers. It is us who complicate it and aren't humble enough to accept a more simple definition.

---

Its not a myth, but a metaphor. The texts itself says this event did not occur on earth! Adam has two meanings: MAN (ch 1) and as a name of a man (ch 2). The details of 'fruit' and 'serpent' are also metaphors. The story overlaps into historical mode after the descent upon the earth (expulsion from a spiritual realm); thus the calendar starts with Adam on Earth as an histrical figure. One cannot isolate the adam story of Gd inducing the sin - from any other negative facet of life: we are impacted by positive and negative force - else we could not have free will.Adam represents the first life form with free will. Also, Gd is not the positive force - both the positive and negative forces are the duality created, as with all things. Genesis first few chapters are very deep and hedy, and become as dizzying as MC2: lets not forget the topic it deals with - it is posited in many levels.

quote:

---

dameeve
Do you mean the story of Adam, Eve, god and the serpent is a myth?
Also, do you mean the devil wasn't in this part of the story or there is or was no devil, period?
Looking at the story from the perception that Adam (masculine force) was tempted to commit a sin by Eve (feminine force) who was tempted by the serpent (negative force), and that it was all created by a loving god (positive force),it just does not make any sense whatsoever. There was never a 'sin' committed.
There are far more logical explanations that don't need rocket science to understand the guidance the bible offers. It is us who complicate it and aren't humble enough to accept a more simple definition.

---

Its not a myth, but a metaphor. The texts itself says this event did not occur on earth! Adam has two meanings: MAN (ch 1) and as a name of a man (ch 2). The details of 'fruit' and 'serpent' are also metaphors. The story overlaps into historical mode after the descent upon the earth (expulsion from a spiritual realm); thus the calendar starts with Adam on Earth as an histrical figure. One cannot isolate the adam story of Gd inducing the sin - from any other negative facet of life: we are impacted by positive and negative force - else we could not have free will.Adam represents the first life form with free will. Also, Gd is not the positive force - both the positive and negative forces are the duality created, as with all things. Genesis first few chapters are very deep and hedy, and become as dizzying as MC2: lets not forget the topic it deals with - it is posited in many levels. Sin applies as a constant unto humanity on earth - humanity was not commanded not to eat of the fruit.

quote:

---

dameeve
I used to believe in a literal interpretation of the bible and as I child I believed I was a sinner. I believed I had committed the unforgivable. To me the sin was so great that I would pay for it the rest of my days and I did. I kept on sinning and I could not help it. We all do. I was trying to be good but my children were also being punished because of my sins. All this was internalized from a childhood perspective of bible teachings.
This was all so hard to bear that after many years of guilt and failure, I could do no more. I attempted suicide.
The moral of my story is that had I known my sins were no more than mistakes that we learn and grow from, I could have and would have been so much happier, and now it is too late.

---

One can sin millions of times and come out winning. Its not the act of the sin but how one acts after the sin only that impacts. The adam-eve story guarantees there is no escape from sin, and the negative force will attack only with the right buttons for each person: it uses the weapon of truth - the most powerful force. There are no prizes for being good - only for being better after sinning.'WHERE A REPENTANT SINNER STANDS - THE MOST RIGHTIOUS CANNOT' Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.

quote:

---

anastasia

​

Sin requires knowledge that there IS a sin. Before eating of the tree, there was no knowledge of Good or Evil.

---

Correct. Even manslaughter (unintentional murder) is not a capital punishable crime. The Israelites were forgiven their failings before Moses arrived because the law was not yet given. A sin (crime) is invoked only when it is fully intentional, and freedom of choice is limited to a moral/ethical decision: there is no freedom of choice outside the 613 commandments, or outside a moral/ethical decision. It is only how we act after a sin that matters.

quote:

---

anastasia
Do we have to say 'I accept God' before we can judge our actions according to reason?

---

I don't think so. A good atheist is better than a bad believer. 'Belief' is not a commandment, and I see it as a suspicious requirement.'Only the soul that sinneth (commits a crime) - it shall pay'Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.